admin
Europe’s leaders quietly agreed this week to shoulder a massive €90 billion ($105 billion) loan to prop up Kyiv for 2026–27, a move that smells like bailout-by-bureaucracy and will saddle taxpayers across the continent for years to come. Instead of seizing frozen Russian assets — which many argued was the morally obvious path — Brussels chose to borrow on capital markets and cast the bill to ordinary citizens, a politically tidy dodge that offloads risk while pretending to be resolute.
The mechanics are revealing: the EU will borrow jointly and lend to Ukraine interest-free, but only after bruising negotiations and carve-outs for reluctant members like Hungary, Slovakia and the Czech Republic who refused to be on the hook. This compromise may paper over divisions for now, but it also exposes a European leadership that prefers bureaucratic accounting tricks to the hard politics of confronting Moscow directly.
Predictably, Vladimir Putin seized on the split and publicly blasted the asset-seizure idea as “daylight robbery,” promising consequences if the West crosses his red lines. Moscow’s spin machine celebrated the EU’s retreat and used the moment to paint European unity as fragile — exactly the sort of propaganda that emboldens dictators when the West waffles.
At the same time, Putin has not been coy about challenging NATO’s credibility — firing back at Western rhetoric and even mocking the alliance after a flurry of comments that rattled capitals. When Western leaders talk tough but then scramble to paper over funding and security commitments, authoritarian regimes read it as weakness; Putin’s jabs at NATO’s strength and his warnings about escalation are meant to test that resolve.
Among the diplomatic maneuvering, Finland’s Alexander Stubb has surfaced as a crucial interlocutor in the peace-track talks, appearing in high-level briefings and coordinating with both European and U.S. envoys as negotiators hunt for a deal. Stubb’s involvement underscores that sensible, pragmatic Europeans are trying to stitch together guarantees that stop short of NATO membership but could stabilize Ukraine long-term — a delicate, realpolitik effort that deserves American attention and backing.
Even domestic critics of President Trump have been challenged by former congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard, who pushed back on the knee-jerk condemnation of any direct outreach aimed at ending the bloodshed. Her point — that endless score-settling and second-guessing by the establishment risks prolonging war — is uncomfortable for the people who profit from perpetual conflict, but worthy of sober consideration in a nation that should prefer peace through strength.
Here’s the bottom line for policy: Europe’s loan is a stopgap, not a strategy, and Moscow’s bluster should not be allowed to intimidate democracies into half-measures. If Washington and our allies are serious about peace, they must couple firm deterrence with pragmatic diplomacy — and stop pretending that bureaucratic loans and wishful talk are substitutes for clear-eyed strategy and American leadership.
